On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006.
While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one
release cycle and come up with a binary update mechanism supported well by
the OS? Increasing the speed of release
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006.
While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one
release cycle and come up with a binary update mechanism supported well by
the OS? Increasing the speed of release
vant? Many of us have just as many production linux boxes
as we do production Windows boxes. (that would be *none*)
--
Joe Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
w to do this using dd from the start of the disk. How do I do
this at the end of the disk?
--
Joe Rhett
senior geek
meer.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:21:13AM +0200, Søren Schmidt wrote:
> On 19/05/2005, at 2.20, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
> >Soren, I've just retested all of this with 5.4-REL and most of the
> >problems
> >listed here are solved. The only problems appear to be related to
d in the mkIII patches then
I'd be willing to investigate, but I will need to be certain.
I know that you have no desire to work on this older code, but could you at
least clue me in on how to get atacontrol to drop these ghost arrays?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:53:59PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
's how things are today. You're
> welcome to submit a PR with your suggestion on how to change the
> documentation to annotate this.
It's not a documentation issue, it's an accuracy issue. Is there a port or
not? Is there a package for the port, or not?
--
Joe Rhett
S
w.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=frontpage&stype=name&release=5.3-RELEASE%2Fi386
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 11:09:04AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > neptune.sv$ pkg_add -r frontpage
> > Error: FTP Unable to get
> > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5.3-release/Latest/frontpage.tbz:
> > File unavailable (e.g., file not found, no acc
--1 110 0 250431 Oct 21 21:21 frontline-0.5.4_1.tbz
226 Directory send OK.
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > > > As another side note, is there a reason that 5.3 doesn't reboot after
> > > > page
> > > > faults? The crash and dumpdev man pages still indicate that it should.
> > > > This ma
t with the HW I have here in the lab, which by far
> covers all possible permutations, so testing etc by the community is
> very much needed here to get things sorted out...
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://
y sandbox in the lab, and we'd be happy to let you
play with it (can't ship it to you, but ...)
What can I give you to help you out?
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinf
> did not even "yank" the disk. He detached it in a somewhat orderly
> fashion using "atacontrol detach."
Actually, I did both and both caused the same page fault :-(
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] maili
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:59:16PM -0800, Doug White wrote:
> > > Thats a nice shotgun you have there.
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > Yessir. And that's what testing is designed to uncover. The question is
> > why this works, and how do we pr
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > As another side note, is there a reason that 5.3 doesn't reboot after page
> > faults? The crash and dumpdev man pages still indicate that it should.
> > This makes this problem hard to work on (must be at facility to debug..)
2004 at 09:41:59PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> And another, I can now confirm that it is fairly easy to kill 5.3-release
> during the rebuilding process. The following steps will cause a kernel
> page fault consistently:
...
> Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
> f
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > And another, I can now confirm that it is fairly easy to kill 5.3-release
> > during the rebuilding process. The following steps will cause a kernel
> > page fault consistently:
> >
> > atacontrol create RAID0
wrong thing should not exist!)
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:42:00PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> And another, I can now confirm that it is fairly easy to kill 5.3-release
> during the rebuilding process. The following steps will cause a kernel
> page fault consistently:
>
> atac
address = 0x10
current process = 1063 (rebuilding ar0 1%)
trap number = 12
panic: page fault
(tell me if you want or need anything I skipped above. Got lazy cause I
had to type it in by hand...)
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED
is wrong?
Just to shorten the thread, I think that clarity would be achieved with:
sandbox# atacontrol status 0
ar0: ATA RAID1 subdisks: ad6 ad10(DOWN) status: DEGRADED
Dec 12 21:13:39 sandbox kernel: Rebuilding array ar0: ad6 -> ad10
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Ge
21 matches
Mail list logo
